IMPORTANT POINT
The validity of an unregistered Will must comply with the requirements of the Evidence Act and the Indian Succession Act. Additionally, non-testamentary instruments must be registered under the Registration Act, and the limitation period for filing a suit for partition is determined by the date of denial of title by the defendants.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2013 passed in A.S.No.32 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal Distirct Judge, Erode, reversal of the judgement and decree dated 18.01.2013 made in O.S.No.51 of 2008 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam, by allowing the second appeal.)

1. This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2013 passed in A.S.No.32 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Erode, reversal of the judgement and decree dated 18.01.2013 made in O.S.No.51 of 2008 on the file of the leanred Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam

2. The appellants are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.51 of 2008 who lost the appeal before the first Appellate Court, has come forward with the present second appeal.

3. The respondent as plaintiff filed the about suit in O.S.No.51 of 2008 on the file of Sub Court, Gopichettipalayam, for partition and separate possession of one third share in the suit property. The respondent/plaintiff has stated that the suit property originally belong to one Appachi gounder, the father of the plaintiff and the defendants. The suit property is his self acquired property, purchased vide sale deed dated 23.06.1985. The said Appachi Gounder died intestate on 30.11.1988. The mother of the plaintiff and the defendants namely Chellamal also died on 19.04.1996. After the death of the Apachi Gounder and his wife Chellammal, the plaintiff and the defendants as the legal heirs succeeded to the suit property and are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to one third share in the suit property.

4. Since there was no cordial relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants, the plaintiff to have an amicable partition issued a legal notice on 18.11.1998 to the defendants demanding for partition for which the defendants sent a reply notice dated 23.01.1999 with false contentions. The defendants in the said reply notice have stated that the suit property is self acquired properties of Appachi Gounder who executed a Will on 07.07.1988 in respect of the suit property in favour of the defendants. The defendants in pursuance of the said Will, after the death of the Appachi Gounder partitioned the suit property in the year 1993 among themselves and the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares and thereby denied the one third share of the plaintiff in the suit property.

5. It is further contended that the plaintiff has executed the release deed on 22.06.1979 in favour of the defendants, which is not true. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit for partition and separate possession.

6. The averments in the written statement filed by the defendants is that the suit property is the self acquired property of their father Appachi Gounder. The said Appachi Gounder executed a Will on 07.07.1988 in favour of the defendants and died on 30.11.1988. After his demise the defendants partitioned the suit property among themselves. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the suit property.

7. It is further submitted that the suit filed by the 1st defendant against the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.61 of 1999 on the file of District Munsif Court, Gopichettipalayam, a compromise decree dated 12.02.1999 was passed. In pursuant to the compromise decree, the suit property were partitioned between the defendants. The plaintiff is well aware of the above facts, hence the plaintiff estopped from claiming the share in the suit property. It is further stated that since the plaintiff married one Rajadurai against the consent of her father Appachi Gounder, the father Appachi Gounder was not willing to give any property to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff was aware of the facts since she was residing near the suit property and also about the execution of the Will in favour of t